MetaJess

As a counterbalance to all this tedious propaganda, let's have a BBC programme that revisits the people featured in these puff pieces 10, 15, 20 years down the line, and sees how well their "open relationships" worked out.

There is zero justification for this stuff on a public service broadcaster. "Ethical non-monogamists" or whatever they're calling themselves this week are not an oppressed or disadvantaged group, they are just self-indulgent and boring.

I think the point is that the usual justification for broadcasting violations of traditional morality is that the violators are oppressed, and this justification does not apply here.

Excuse me, since when are broadcasters supposed to be 'moral'?

everything is always required to be moral as for the BBC, 'the preservation of a high moral tone is obviously of paramount importance': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reith,_1st_Baron_Reith#cite_note-21 … Further, I'm pretty sure you want it to be moral, too, though we may differ on the details

Tbh, I'd be ok with an actively amoral public broadcaster for the bantz.

I'm aware, Frog, I was just betting on this person being very unlike you.